PJ Watson on the electoral victory of Geert Wilders
Here is a link to a BBC assassination piece on Wilders. Perhaps we should adopt the Global Warming rhetorical scam-spotting game, Bullsh*t Bingo and adapt it to dialectical tactics by the MSM.
On your card you could have:
Insulting insinuations not used for leftist candidates. An example would be a critique of Wilders’ hair style but never attacking any leftist candidate for hair plugs or dye or any other form of quaff.
“Controversial”. One of my personal favorite dialectical/rhetorical weapons of the MSM. CBC uses it sprinkled on eggs every morning for breakfast. A politician is controversial if he is counter-revolutionary. If that politician or person is a communist revolutionary that word is not used. A general example would be a Prof. of Biology with Ph.D.s in the field, who says that a man cannot simply become a woman by saying so, is controversial. While a man claiming to be a woman on one day to take all the top spots in women’s sports and then going back to being a man afterwards is not controversial. Because of the stance that J.K. Rowling has taken on this, she is now considered a far right wing, and highly controversial figure. A Canadian nurse was investigated in fact, for involvement with a billboard saying I (heart) JK ROWLING.
(Her ordeal is still ongoing as of November 9th this year)
The article continues in more subtle ways to disparage Wilders. They discuss his arrest for a thought crime and that communist UK refused to allow him into the country, even though Wilders at that time was an MPs in the European Union and the UK was still inside the EU. This shows the real nature of the beast. The European Union is a revolutionary organization like the UN. Although their rules stipulate that one country must grant access to members of parliament from other EU states, the truth was that this only applies to agents of the revolution. This site emphasizes the single metric by which all things work today. And that is communist-revolution Vs. counter-revolution. The evidence for this is as common as gravel and salt on the roads in the winter in Canada. All processes work this way. When a court or hearing or ‘Human Rights Tribunal” adjudicates on the actual evidence, rule of law, and real human rights, meaning individual ones and not arbitrarily defined collective ones, it’s the exception.
In the case of Wilders, think of it this way. Leftist activists invent all kinds of bogus organization to create awards to give to left wing activists in order to add gravitas to their agenda. There is one dialectical-Jewish man (He uses his ethnicity as a sword and a shield to advance leftist objectives, hence ‘dialectic Jew) who heads a dialectical communist organization much like the SPLC in the US, in Canada who even speaks at events sponsored by CAIR-Canada (now NCCM) to combat ‘islamophobia ‘who’s talks are prefaced with all kinds of awards. We see this often with the left. It is a way of getting people to listen, and giving authority to people who have accomplished nothing but are advancing the communist agenda. With Wilders, they invent charges and events which are not legal or proper procedure which they know will fail under scrutiny of any court not yet fully revolutionary. But that doesn’t matter. What does, is that they can talk about the accusation. So kind of the inverse of the awards scam. For leftists, invent fake awards to give gravitas, for counter-revolutionaries, invent charges and prohibitions to destroy their public image. Alinsky Rule 13.
Wilders was convicted of inciting discrimination, although later acquitted, and he was refused entry to the UK back in 2009.
Accused. They took him to court over asking his constituency a question of immigration policy. The actual job of government. They accused and tried him twice of a thought/speech crime because the question he asked, “Do you want more Moroccan immigration (to the Netherlands) or less”? was a counter-revolutionary one. See in a contemporary democracy you have total freedom of speech so long as its all in perfect accordance with the communist nation-destroying, individual-crushing agenda. Wilders dared ask the people of the Netherlands what they want for the future of the Netherlands and was tried twice and acquitted for it. But the BBC uses that accusation as a cudgel. Same as his rejection from the UK, which is actually a breach of rules, if not illegal, of the UK not Wilders. The BBC are dialectical engineers.
For those interested, here is Geert’s closing statement at one of the struggle sessions trials he was put through over this matter:
But Europe’s far right believes their views have now become more mainstream.
This one above we all know. It’s called, Moving the Goal Posts. What was once the absolute obvious reasonable goals of any nation state, to protect itself, to protect its citizens, to have equality before law for all etc. etc. is now “far right wing”. There is a double irony here. The left, in what is probably the greatest con of the 20th century, have convinced people that the Nazis are some how right wing. The National Socialist Worker’s Party under Hitler, far right wing by some act of alchemy. The party who”s leader’s speeches, notably at Nuremberg, quoted Marx chapter and Verse, who hated the Russians because he didn’t think they could pull off socialism while the Germans could, those guys were right wing. All powerful state and the crushing of individual rights is in no way right wing. That is Hegelian/Marxist communism. Libertarian, maximal individual rights with minimal state power, is the true right wing. And there is the double, and maybe even triple irony. It means that Wilders, Orban, Trump, The new Argentinian guy, possibly Poilievre in Canada and other people the media call “far right wing” are in reality somewhat right wing, but in the opposite way of the impression they are trying to create. Frankly, by libertarian standards, all these leaders are still more collectivist and big government than is desirable. So in fact they are just more right wing in the good way than the revolutionary communists now running the Western world and its media and institutions. Hence the triple irony.
With a little more effort we could flesh out all the score card points for Bullsh*t bingo of leftist dialectical journalism. Probably all of it from that one BBC article, although I’m sure there are other devices they may have neglected to use in that one article. Feel free to leave ones you may have noticed in the comments.
